Daripada Amerika utang pada negeri lain, dan mau kemudian bayar kembali dengan cetak uang, apa bedanya dengan tidak utang, tetapi cetak uang sendiri lebih banyak ? Cetak uang lebih banyak untuk salah satu keperluan ini, teknis bisa, tetapi ekonomis rugi , ekonomi bisa bertahun tahun rusak.. Keterangannya tsb. di bawah : https://www.quora.com/Why-dont-we-simply-print-16-Billion-1000-bills-and-pay-off-our-debt Why don't we simply print 16 Billion $1000 bills and pay off our debt? 11 Answers [image: Josh Wood] <https://www.quora.com/profile/Josh-Wood-5> Josh Wood <https://www.quora.com/profile/Josh-Wood-5>, economusician. Updated Sep 22, 2012 <https://www.quora.com/Why-dont-we-simply-print-16-Billion-1000-bills-and-pay-off-our-debt/answer/Josh-Wood-5> Why hasn't anyone else thought of this? Julian is partly correct that no one would want to lend to us anymore. But if we were able to pay off our loans by just printing more money, why did we ever need to borrow it in the first place? Let's entertain that thought in a moment.
First, to address your immediate question, we *could *potentially resolve our debt problem in that way, but it would lead to much bigger problems. Primarily, it would result in hyperinflation, as was suggested, with 16 trillion new US dollars in international hands and over a trillion of that in China alone--a dramatic increase in national income everywhere except the US. That income spike would cause aggregate demand for goods purchasable in USD to soar. Merchants would naturally respond by increasing the price of their goods, restabilizing the real value of the dollar. The consequences of such a series of events would be catastrophic. The purchasing power of the dollar would decrease enormously. This would place strain on American buyers who now have to pay more for goods without the higher income that China has received and thus cause a recession that would dwarf that of 2008. Unemployment would spike, as many firms would find it advantageous to migrate to China and elsewhere where there is new demand for their products. Meanwhile, the People's Bank of China, for one, would be pissed because, even though they now have more dollars than they did before, those dollars aren't worth nearly as much as when they sold that debt to the US. Whereas before $1.3 trillion could have bought China, say, 200 aircraft carriers (fairly close to current market price), after inflation of this variety it might only buy them 20. And you and I both know that China's in this for the aircraft carriers. They would begrudgingly buy those 20 carriers and haul them across the Pacific to vent their frustrations against our now-decrepit Treasury in person. Meanwhile, we'd be firing bows and arrows from canoes like those island people that went to war with the US in that British movie. Doomsday scenarios aside, we would end up with two major problems (among others, for sure): a *devastating recession* and a *diplomatic fallout with China *(and other servicers of US debt). *Basically, the dollar is only valuable if it's scarce, because we use it to procure scarce resources.* When it's no longer scarce, its no longer transitive as a currency and has no value. So, in reality, the reason that other countries would no longer lend us money if we freely printed our own is because the exchange rate between the dollar and any other currency would approach zero, leaving banks and merchants with nothing to gain by transacting in US dollars. *There would be no incentive for nations to produce anything of real value, rendering the concept of GDP meaningless.* Furthermore, if we could resolve debt by just printing bills, there would be nothing to prevent other countries/central banks from doing so--and you would end up in a world full of meaningless currency. 2017-06-20 21:46 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Goeij jonathango...@yahoo.com [GELORA45] <GELORA45@yahoogroups.com>: > > > > Bung Djie, Tiongkok punya cadangan devisa USD 3 T, apakah anda pikir > semuanya uang kertas? > > > ---In GELORA45@yahoogroups.com, <djiekh@...> wrote : > > Jadi kalau Amerika utang x biljoen dollar, terus cetak x biljoen dollar, > bayarkan ke Amerika dan jepang, lalu utangnya tinggal nol ? Apa ya, utang > itu dibayar uang cash ? > Kok saya dengar2 bayarnya lewat balans suatu negara lewat berbagai bank. > Seperti Indonesia itu katanya punya cadangan dollar ada di berbagai bank > Singapore, Inggris, Belanda, Swiss dll. ? > > 2017-06-20 20:17 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Goeij jonathangoeij@... [GELORA45] < > GELORA45@yahoogroups.com>: > > Bung Djie, kelihatannya anda masih penasaran/bingung apa bedanya pengaruh > cetak duit thd utang dalam mata uangnya sendiri dan bukan mata uangnya > sendiri. Saya beri contoh sederhana secara tehnis: > > Misal: > Nilai sebelum cetak duit rupiah = 10 ribu / USD > Utang dollar 1000 USD atau Rp 10 juta > > cetak duit, rupiah terdevaluasi > > Nilai setelah cetak duit rupiah = 15 ribu / USD > Utang 1000 USD jadi Rp 15 juta > > dus setelah cetak duit utk bayar utang 1000 USD itu bukan lagi Rp 10 juta > tetapi Rp 15 juta. terlihat cetak duit tidak bermanfaat. > > sedang kalau utang dlm rupiah katakanlah 10 juta, sebelum atau sesudah > cetak duit ya tetap sama 10 juta. disini manfaat cetak duit buat bayar > utang jadi optimal. > > > > ---In GELORA45@yahoogroups.com, <djiekh@...> wrote : > > What is the 'Fisher Effect' > The Fisher effect is an economic theory proposed by economist > <http://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/economist.asp> Irving Fisher that > describes the relationship between inflation > <http://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/inflation.asp> and both real and > nominal <http://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/nominal.asp> interest rates. > The Fisher effect states that the real interest rate > <http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/realinterestrate.asp> equals to the > nominal > interest rate > <http://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/nominalinterestrate.asp> minus the > expected inflation rate. Therefore, real interest rates fall as inflation > increases, unless nominal rates increase at the same rate as inflation. > > > Read more: Fisher Effect > <http://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fishereffect.asp#ixzz4kYXRpvxK> > http://www. > investopedia.com/terms/f/ fishereffect.asp#ixzz4kYXRpvxK > <http://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fishereffect.asp#ixzz4kYXRpvxK> > Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook > <http://ec.tynt.com/b/rf?id=arwjQmCEqr4l6Cadbi-bnq&u=Investopedia> > > 2017-06-20 17:16 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Goeij <jonathangoeij@...>: > > ---In GELORA45@yahoogroups.com , <nesare1@...> wrote : > > >
